Hamid Karzai declared president of Afghanistan
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
KABUL/ISLAMABAD: Afghanistan’s election commission on Monday declared Hamid Karzai elected as president after it called off a run-off following the withdrawal of his only rival.
The run-off, called after the first round in August was marred by widespread fraud, was to have been held on November 7. “The Independent Election Commission declares the esteemed Hamid Karzai as the president ... because he was the winner of the first round and the only candidate in the second round,” the commission’s chief Azizullah Ludin told a news conference.
Former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah withdrew from the race over the weekend, citing doubts about the credibility of the election process. “There is no second round,” the IEC’s chief electoral officer Daoud Ali Najafi told Reuters. President Asif Ali Zardari congratulated President Karzai after the election organisers declared him the winner, AFP reported. “I have great pleasure to extend to you my heartiest felicitations on your re-election,” he said.
Labels: Afghanistan
posted @ 10:36 AM,
,
Post Election Crisis in Afghanistan
Friday, September 4, 2009
The fact that Abdullah Abdullah got an endorsement from an important tribe of a Kandahar district was a singular exception to the rule that votes are cast in Afghanistan on tribal and ethnic lines
In my column last week, I had expressed the fear that the allegations of election fraud would further divide Afghanistan rather than give added legitimacy to a re-elected President Karzai. Developments over the last week have only strengthened the basis for this apprehension.
more
In my column last week, I had expressed the fear that the allegations of election fraud would further divide Afghanistan rather than give added legitimacy to a re-elected President Karzai. Developments over the last week have only strengthened the basis for this apprehension.
more
Labels: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Taliban, US Invasion of Afghanistan, War on Terror
posted @ 6:32 PM,
,
Elections in Afghanistan
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
There are up to 225 allegations of irregularity in the Afghan election held last week and the outcome is still unknown – but hotly contested on all sides. Some of the allegations are of sufficient substance and gravity as to have a bearing on the final result. Currently, both the incumbent Hamid Karzai and former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah claim to be ahead in the vote count, and some of Karzai's supporters are saying that their candidate has had a landslide victory capturing 70 per cent of the vote. Abdullah has made claims on national and international media that the vote was rigged and that fraud was widespread. The preliminary results of the presidential election are expected in a few days, but will be subject to Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) investigation. The turnout was low, there was intimidation and violence and 'irregularities' were expected by those monitoring the process.
It is becoming clear that Hamid Karzai may have to share power. This is a less-than-ideal outcome for the sponsors of this exercise in democracy – Britain, Canada and Germany plus the US – who will view with concern a protracted post-electoral wrangle. They will want to 'move on' as swiftly as possible as uncertainty or dispute about the outcome of the lection will inevitably read across to the poor and deteriorating security situation. For the US and Britain they are facing an increasingly sceptical public, who are less and less likely to 'buy' the war as days go by. An ABC news/Washington Post poll released last week showed that US public support for the war in Afghanistan has declined sharply, with more than half the US for the first time saying the war is not worth fighting – 51 per cent say it isn't, 47 per cent say it is. For the coalition that has invested lives and treasure in the Afghan conflict; having a contested or provably corrupt election will make justification of involvement to their own electorates increasingly difficult. It is going to come down to either a 'clean' second-round victory for one of the candidates or a deal between Karzai and Abdullah. The run-off if it happens will be in October; but a deal could be struck earlier than that and perhaps be a better outcome for all – except, perhaps, Hamid Karzai.
source
It is becoming clear that Hamid Karzai may have to share power. This is a less-than-ideal outcome for the sponsors of this exercise in democracy – Britain, Canada and Germany plus the US – who will view with concern a protracted post-electoral wrangle. They will want to 'move on' as swiftly as possible as uncertainty or dispute about the outcome of the lection will inevitably read across to the poor and deteriorating security situation. For the US and Britain they are facing an increasingly sceptical public, who are less and less likely to 'buy' the war as days go by. An ABC news/Washington Post poll released last week showed that US public support for the war in Afghanistan has declined sharply, with more than half the US for the first time saying the war is not worth fighting – 51 per cent say it isn't, 47 per cent say it is. For the coalition that has invested lives and treasure in the Afghan conflict; having a contested or provably corrupt election will make justification of involvement to their own electorates increasingly difficult. It is going to come down to either a 'clean' second-round victory for one of the candidates or a deal between Karzai and Abdullah. The run-off if it happens will be in October; but a deal could be struck earlier than that and perhaps be a better outcome for all – except, perhaps, Hamid Karzai.
source
Labels: 9/11, Afghanistan, Elections in Afghanistan, US Invasion of Afghanistan
posted @ 5:41 PM,
,
Credible Information about Balochistan
Thursday, August 6, 2009
KARACHI: Pakistan received credible information regarding outside interference in Balochistan and the Nato reconfirmed it and hinted that arms and ammunition were being smuggled to Balochistan from Afghanistan.
Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit Khan said this in a news briefing at the Karachi Press Club on Wednesday.He said that the Indo-Pak dialogue was suspended after the Mumbai attacks but efforts were under way to restart confidence building measures (CBMs) between the two neighbouring countries.
more
Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit Khan said this in a news briefing at the Karachi Press Club on Wednesday.He said that the Indo-Pak dialogue was suspended after the Mumbai attacks but efforts were under way to restart confidence building measures (CBMs) between the two neighbouring countries.
more
Labels: Afghanistan, Balochistan, NATO
posted @ 10:50 AM,
,
India and Afghanistan supporting insurgency in Balochistan.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
The News International, Pakistan, Saturday, July 25, 2009
ISLAMABAD: Interior Minister Rehman Malik on Friday told the Senate that the Pakistan government had given proofs to the Indian and Afghan governments regarding their direct involvement in promoting insurgency in Balochistan.
“I myself in a meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul provided him proofs regarding three training camps in Afghanistan where Baloch insurgents are being provided training,” he said while responding to a point of order in the Upper House of parliament.
More
ISLAMABAD: Interior Minister Rehman Malik on Friday told the Senate that the Pakistan government had given proofs to the Indian and Afghan governments regarding their direct involvement in promoting insurgency in Balochistan.
“I myself in a meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul provided him proofs regarding three training camps in Afghanistan where Baloch insurgents are being provided training,” he said while responding to a point of order in the Upper House of parliament.
More
Labels: Afghanistan, Balochistan, India, Insurgency
posted @ 12:40 AM,
,
Pak-Afghan border needs a fence like US-Mexico: Gilani
Saturday, July 4, 2009
The News International, Pakistan, Saturday, July 04, 2009
ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani on Friday sought the support of the United States to work out a permanent solution for uncontrolled, illegal crossings, particularly of militants and terrorists, and drug trafficking across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
Gilani was talking to US Secretary for Homeland Security Janet Napilitano, who called on him here at the PM House on Friday. Referring to Janet’s initiative, as governor of Arizona, of erecting a wall between the US and Mexico border, the prime minister said a similar pattern of fencing between Pakistan and Afghanistan could be implemented to stop infiltration and drug trafficking.
More
ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani on Friday sought the support of the United States to work out a permanent solution for uncontrolled, illegal crossings, particularly of militants and terrorists, and drug trafficking across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
Gilani was talking to US Secretary for Homeland Security Janet Napilitano, who called on him here at the PM House on Friday. Referring to Janet’s initiative, as governor of Arizona, of erecting a wall between the US and Mexico border, the prime minister said a similar pattern of fencing between Pakistan and Afghanistan could be implemented to stop infiltration and drug trafficking.
More
Labels: Afghanistan, Pak Afghan Border, War on Terror
posted @ 10:19 AM,
,
Chasing shadows
The News International, Pakistan, Saturday, July 04, 2009
There is a sense of weary familiarity about the latest push by the Americans in Afghanistan. This is the first time President Obama has gone to battle using his own people and his own war-plans. His troops are up against the Taliban of Helmand province and it is all done with an eye to national elections in Afghanistan in August. To nobody's great surprise the first day of the operation which is called Khanjar (dagger in Dari and Pashtu but translated somewhat clumsily by the Marines as 'Strike of the Sword'), has yielded little. Almost 4,000 American troops and about 650 Afghan police and soldiers had by dusk on the first day taken the southern Khanishin district, entering the main town with no resistance. A US Marines spokesman, First Lieutenant Kurt Stahl said…"The helicopter insert has put all troops on the ground now in Garmser and Nawa," referring to districts that are key targets of the assault. "Half of the objectives have been secured by nightfall, ahead of schedule. Slight resistance has been met" he said. The 'slight resistance' has so far seen one marine killed and another reportedly captured. The Taliban for their part have said that they have 'thousands' of troops ready to fight the Americans and their Afghan allies, but if recent history is anything to go by, the Americans may find themselves chasing shadows across a dusty Helmand – as the Taliban rarely commit units larger than platoon-size and avoid conventional set-piece war-fighting.
More
There is a sense of weary familiarity about the latest push by the Americans in Afghanistan. This is the first time President Obama has gone to battle using his own people and his own war-plans. His troops are up against the Taliban of Helmand province and it is all done with an eye to national elections in Afghanistan in August. To nobody's great surprise the first day of the operation which is called Khanjar (dagger in Dari and Pashtu but translated somewhat clumsily by the Marines as 'Strike of the Sword'), has yielded little. Almost 4,000 American troops and about 650 Afghan police and soldiers had by dusk on the first day taken the southern Khanishin district, entering the main town with no resistance. A US Marines spokesman, First Lieutenant Kurt Stahl said…"The helicopter insert has put all troops on the ground now in Garmser and Nawa," referring to districts that are key targets of the assault. "Half of the objectives have been secured by nightfall, ahead of schedule. Slight resistance has been met" he said. The 'slight resistance' has so far seen one marine killed and another reportedly captured. The Taliban for their part have said that they have 'thousands' of troops ready to fight the Americans and their Afghan allies, but if recent history is anything to go by, the Americans may find themselves chasing shadows across a dusty Helmand – as the Taliban rarely commit units larger than platoon-size and avoid conventional set-piece war-fighting.
More
Labels: Afghanistan, Helmund Province, Taliban, War on Terror
posted @ 9:39 AM,
,
Uprising in Afghanistan if US prolongs its stay: Owais
Monday, June 29, 2009
The News International, Pakistan, Monnday, June 29, 2009
LAHORE: NWFP Governor Owais Ghani on Sunday warned the US-led coalition in Afghanistan of an Afghan national uprising in case its forces prolonged their stay in the country, which never tolerated aliens for long.
Speaking at the Geo TV programme Jawabdeh, the governor was evasive when asked about the US forces’ unwillingness to share intelligence regarding the whereabouts of TTP leader Baitullah Mehsud and their failure to act against him.
When asked again to comment on anomalies in the US anti-terror policies in Pakistan, he said actions speak louder than words, before saying finally: “I would not comment.” He, however, made no bones about declaring that the US-led coalition had failed to control the Afghan area.
More
LAHORE: NWFP Governor Owais Ghani on Sunday warned the US-led coalition in Afghanistan of an Afghan national uprising in case its forces prolonged their stay in the country, which never tolerated aliens for long.
Speaking at the Geo TV programme Jawabdeh, the governor was evasive when asked about the US forces’ unwillingness to share intelligence regarding the whereabouts of TTP leader Baitullah Mehsud and their failure to act against him.
When asked again to comment on anomalies in the US anti-terror policies in Pakistan, he said actions speak louder than words, before saying finally: “I would not comment.” He, however, made no bones about declaring that the US-led coalition had failed to control the Afghan area.
More
Labels: Afghan Uprising, Afghanistan, US Invasion of Afghanistan, US Led Coalition, War on Terror
posted @ 9:43 AM,
,
Top Obama aide to visit Pakistan, Afghanistan, India
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The News International, Pakistan, Tuesday, June 23, 2009
WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama’s top security adviser James Jones will visit Afghanistan and Pakistan to monitor implementation of the new US war plan, a US official said on Monday.
Jones, who will also visit India, will meet local officials, US diplomats, military personnel and representatives of foreign nations battling alongside US troops in the Afghan war coalition. “At the request of the president, national security adviser Jim Jones is traveling to Afghanistan and Pakistan to follow-up on the implementation of our new, comprehensive strategy,” said National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer.
Source
WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama’s top security adviser James Jones will visit Afghanistan and Pakistan to monitor implementation of the new US war plan, a US official said on Monday.
Jones, who will also visit India, will meet local officials, US diplomats, military personnel and representatives of foreign nations battling alongside US troops in the Afghan war coalition. “At the request of the president, national security adviser Jim Jones is traveling to Afghanistan and Pakistan to follow-up on the implementation of our new, comprehensive strategy,” said National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer.
Source
Labels: Afghanistan, India, Obama, US Pakistan Relations, War on Terror
posted @ 9:37 AM,
,
Wheels within wheels
Friday, June 19, 2009
Dawn, Pakistan, Friday, 19 Jun, 2009
SOW the wind and reap the whirlwind. The full ramifications of the dangerous game played by Pakistan’s security establishment over the past few decades are now being felt where they hurt the most: at home, on our own turf. Misguided policies of strategic depth in Afghanistan created a cadre of highly trained and motivated militants who are now beyond the control of their original keepers. Perhaps equally disastrously, Pakistan’s policy of turning more than a blind eye to sectarian and ‘jihadi’ outfits that looked eastward rather than across the Durand Line produced a breed of fighters that has now been deprived of a cause. Their guns, as we speak, are trained inwards and terrorism within the borders of Pakistan is the curse of the day. The ‘jihadis’ of the 1990s are today’s terrorists, harbouring a serious grudge against a state that seemingly jettisoned them after joining the ‘enemy’ camp. What once came across as a symbiotic relationship turned adversarial soon after 9/11, possibly under duress. Our very own militants, it seems, have come home to roost.
More
SOW the wind and reap the whirlwind. The full ramifications of the dangerous game played by Pakistan’s security establishment over the past few decades are now being felt where they hurt the most: at home, on our own turf. Misguided policies of strategic depth in Afghanistan created a cadre of highly trained and motivated militants who are now beyond the control of their original keepers. Perhaps equally disastrously, Pakistan’s policy of turning more than a blind eye to sectarian and ‘jihadi’ outfits that looked eastward rather than across the Durand Line produced a breed of fighters that has now been deprived of a cause. Their guns, as we speak, are trained inwards and terrorism within the borders of Pakistan is the curse of the day. The ‘jihadis’ of the 1990s are today’s terrorists, harbouring a serious grudge against a state that seemingly jettisoned them after joining the ‘enemy’ camp. What once came across as a symbiotic relationship turned adversarial soon after 9/11, possibly under duress. Our very own militants, it seems, have come home to roost.
More
Labels: Afghanistan, Establishment, Jihadists, War on Terror
posted @ 11:14 AM,
,
Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan pledge Taliban fight
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Mon Jun 15, 2009
YEKATERINBURG, Russia (Reuters) - Russia, Pakistan and Afghanistan called for stronger regional cooperation in fighting the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.
U.S. President Barack Obama has made better international cooperation on Afghanistan an important element of his plan to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan where violence is at its worst level since U.S.-led forces toppled the Islamists in 2001.
Read More
YEKATERINBURG, Russia (Reuters) - Russia, Pakistan and Afghanistan called for stronger regional cooperation in fighting the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.
U.S. President Barack Obama has made better international cooperation on Afghanistan an important element of his plan to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan where violence is at its worst level since U.S.-led forces toppled the Islamists in 2001.
Read More
Labels: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, Taliban, War on Terror
posted @ 10:03 AM,
,
Record violence in Afghanistan in early June: Petraeus
Friday, June 12, 2009
The News International, Pakistan
Friday, June 12, 2009
WASHINGTON: Violent unrest surged to new highs in Afghanistan in May and there are "tough months ahead" even as US reinforcements flow in, the commander of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan warned Thursday.
"The past week was the highest level of security incidents in Afghanistan's post-liberation history," General David Petraeus said in a speech here, referring to the Taliban's ouster from power in late 2001. Figures for incidents in Afghanistan for the first week of June were not immediately available.
From January to May, insurgent attacks in Afghanistan were up by 59 percent from the same period a year earlier, NATO data show. "There is no question that the situation has deteriorated over the course of the past two years and that there are difficult times ahead," said Petraeus, who heads the US Central Command.
"There are some tough months ahead," he added, saying that the levels of violence would rise in part "because we are going to go after their sanctuaries and safe havens as we must."
Source
Friday, June 12, 2009
WASHINGTON: Violent unrest surged to new highs in Afghanistan in May and there are "tough months ahead" even as US reinforcements flow in, the commander of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan warned Thursday.
"The past week was the highest level of security incidents in Afghanistan's post-liberation history," General David Petraeus said in a speech here, referring to the Taliban's ouster from power in late 2001. Figures for incidents in Afghanistan for the first week of June were not immediately available.
From January to May, insurgent attacks in Afghanistan were up by 59 percent from the same period a year earlier, NATO data show. "There is no question that the situation has deteriorated over the course of the past two years and that there are difficult times ahead," said Petraeus, who heads the US Central Command.
"There are some tough months ahead," he added, saying that the levels of violence would rise in part "because we are going to go after their sanctuaries and safe havens as we must."
Source
Labels: Afghanistan, Insurgency, Violence, War on Terror
posted @ 9:29 AM,
,
Taliban will never be defeated: 'Col Imam'
Monday, June 8, 2009
Nation, Pakistan
Published: June 08, 2009
THE Pakistani intelligence agent who trained Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, to fight has warned that Nato forces will never overpower their enemies in Afghanistan and should talk to them rather than sacrifice more lives. “You can never win the war in Afghanistan,” said so-called ‘Colonel Imam’, who ran a training programme for the Afghan resistance to the Soviet Union’s occupation from 1979 to 1989, then helped to form the Taliban. “I have worked with these people since the 1970s and I tell you they will never be defeated. Anyone who has come here has got stuck. The more you kill, the more they will expand,” he said in an interview with The Sunday Times.
Read More
Read More
Labels: Afghanistan, Taliban, War on Terror
posted @ 11:57 AM,
,
Time for Holbrooke to play Durand
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Dawn, Pakistan
By Nasser Yousaf
Saturday, 06 Jun, 2009
THAT Sir Mortimer Durand was the statesman consummate he has left irrefutable proof thereof. In the early autumn of 1893, Durand left Peshawar for Kabul and stayed there as a special guest of Amir Abdur Rehman.
He returned to Peshawar two months later with the priceless trophy of the ‘Durand Line’ drawn between the British and Afghan areas of influence in the heretofore no-man’s Frontier region.
Those were not easy times either. British India had taken the railways into the heart of Afghan lands through the mythical Khojak Tunnel in the rugged Balochistan terrain. Amir Abdur Rehman was incensed and it appeared that the formidable Afghan emotions would be hard to cool down. Employing all the craft that he possessed, the Afghan amir had made stealthy arrangements to pen every single word that Durand, who spoke fluent Persian, uttered during their fateful meetings. But all such moves on the part of the Afghan ruler came to naught as an astute Durand carried the day through sifting and demarcating the respective spheres over which the two would have the right to exercise suzerainty.
More than a century later, Durand lies buried in obscurity in the Christian cemetery in Dera Ismail Khan. The area all around is up in spiralling flames and the world knows little about how to put out the raging fire. Although the sanctity of the Line is scarcely known to have been observed owing to the fact that the same people have for eons lived on either side of it, it had a symbolically sobering effect on relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan. But new actors or non-state actors — the Taliban — have since emerged on the scene. Britain has since been replaced by the US as the reigning power and Mr Richard Holbrooke has unwittingly been chosen to act as Mortimer Durand.
Read More
Labels: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Durand Line, Militancy, Pak Afghan Border, Taliban, Terrorism
posted @ 9:51 AM,
,
See-saw of Pak-Afghan battle
Monday, June 1, 2009
Daily Times, Pakistan
Monday, June 01, 2009
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani on Saturday expressed concern over the US decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan. He thought it would complicate the situation “because the inflow of militants into Pakistan’s border areas would increase”. He says he has already talked about it to the US and British governments. According to him, Pakistan wanted deployment of [its own] troops on the Afghan border to stop infiltration of militants into Pakistan; and what was needed was more intelligence-sharing and coordination between the Pakistan army and the NATO forces.
The prime minister also referred to the foreign militants already on Pakistani soil — Uzbeks, Chechens, Arabs and Afghans — while promising that information about the “involvement of foreign elements” would be shared with the nation “at some appropriate time”. However, the presence of foreign fighters has also been confirmed by the Pakistan Army spokesperson during the daily briefings on the ongoing operation. There is also the issue of India’s involvement in destabilising Pakistan. This needs more proof than is currently available, though it must be said that getting evidence which can actually stick in a court of law is nearly impossible, such being the nature of the issue.
Mr Gilani’s objection to the American troop surge may also be based on analyses within the United States that oppose sending in more troops. The fear that this could push Taliban fighters into Pakistan cannot be dismissed because the last time coalition forces put the heat on Taliban-Al Qaeda fighters, they chose to cross over into Pakistan to escape annihilation. The strategy, therefore, needs to take this into consideration. Right now Pakistan is grappling with those extremist cadres that routinely attack its interests. The degree of difficulty in handling what is already on the ground is perhaps one reason why Mr Gilani has expressed the fear of more such elements entering Pakistan and overstretching Pakistan’s capacity to deal with the problem.
The paradox is clearly there. NATO-US commanders in Afghanistan think that the Taliban infiltrate into Afghanistan from Pakistan’s tribal areas. From the latest statement of our prime minister, it is clear that Pakistan too thinks that “foreign” and Afghan terrorists enter Pakistan from Afghanistan despite the deployment of Pakistani troops along the border. Pakistan thinks that if more American troops are deployed on the Afghan side, more rather than fewer militants will be pushed into Pakistan. The Americans on the other hand think that if Pakistani troops take on the Taliban in the tribal areas, fewer rather than more terrorists would be pushed into Afghanistan. The fact is that movement from west to east and east to west cannot be seen as mutually exclusive. There is movement on both sides because of the nature of the conflict, the ethnic and religious motivations involved and the terrain itself.
The idea of a “pincers” strategy against the militants is not to the liking of Pakistan. The strategy that NATO-US forces and the Pakistan Army attack the militants from two sides and finish them off by blocking their escape routes is not very appealing when you take into account the scale of the task being faced by the Pakistan Army. South Waziristan is the base of the Taliban, their leader Baitullah Mehsud now unquestionably the most powerful warlord in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. He has his “branchline” groups in all the agencies of FATA and the Malakand region, with jihadi collaborators in the NWFP, Sindh, Punjab and Balochistan. He has fighters and funds at his disposal unmatched by any other warlord. Fighting him will be a major operation. If he begins to get more fighters from Afghanistan, that would only add to Pakistan’s problems. Pakistan could be persuaded to pull out elements from the eastern side but that may not be possible until the US could convince India to thin its military presence on its western front.
President Barack Obama may be thinking of an exit strategy but he also plans to more than double the number of US forces in Afghanistan to 68,000 troops by the end of 2009, up from about 32,000 in 2008. Pakistani strategists think that only 200,000 to 300,000 American troops will deliver Afghanistan; anything short of that will make a mess of the war, pushing more Taliban fighters and refugees into Pakistan. Therefore Pakistan is in there for the long haul. It wants to tackle the menace of the Taliban piecemeal, relying on the public opinion in its favour, without being faced with more Taliban militants from across the Durand Line. *
Source
The prime minister also referred to the foreign militants already on Pakistani soil — Uzbeks, Chechens, Arabs and Afghans — while promising that information about the “involvement of foreign elements” would be shared with the nation “at some appropriate time”. However, the presence of foreign fighters has also been confirmed by the Pakistan Army spokesperson during the daily briefings on the ongoing operation. There is also the issue of India’s involvement in destabilising Pakistan. This needs more proof than is currently available, though it must be said that getting evidence which can actually stick in a court of law is nearly impossible, such being the nature of the issue.
Mr Gilani’s objection to the American troop surge may also be based on analyses within the United States that oppose sending in more troops. The fear that this could push Taliban fighters into Pakistan cannot be dismissed because the last time coalition forces put the heat on Taliban-Al Qaeda fighters, they chose to cross over into Pakistan to escape annihilation. The strategy, therefore, needs to take this into consideration. Right now Pakistan is grappling with those extremist cadres that routinely attack its interests. The degree of difficulty in handling what is already on the ground is perhaps one reason why Mr Gilani has expressed the fear of more such elements entering Pakistan and overstretching Pakistan’s capacity to deal with the problem.
The paradox is clearly there. NATO-US commanders in Afghanistan think that the Taliban infiltrate into Afghanistan from Pakistan’s tribal areas. From the latest statement of our prime minister, it is clear that Pakistan too thinks that “foreign” and Afghan terrorists enter Pakistan from Afghanistan despite the deployment of Pakistani troops along the border. Pakistan thinks that if more American troops are deployed on the Afghan side, more rather than fewer militants will be pushed into Pakistan. The Americans on the other hand think that if Pakistani troops take on the Taliban in the tribal areas, fewer rather than more terrorists would be pushed into Afghanistan. The fact is that movement from west to east and east to west cannot be seen as mutually exclusive. There is movement on both sides because of the nature of the conflict, the ethnic and religious motivations involved and the terrain itself.
The idea of a “pincers” strategy against the militants is not to the liking of Pakistan. The strategy that NATO-US forces and the Pakistan Army attack the militants from two sides and finish them off by blocking their escape routes is not very appealing when you take into account the scale of the task being faced by the Pakistan Army. South Waziristan is the base of the Taliban, their leader Baitullah Mehsud now unquestionably the most powerful warlord in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. He has his “branchline” groups in all the agencies of FATA and the Malakand region, with jihadi collaborators in the NWFP, Sindh, Punjab and Balochistan. He has fighters and funds at his disposal unmatched by any other warlord. Fighting him will be a major operation. If he begins to get more fighters from Afghanistan, that would only add to Pakistan’s problems. Pakistan could be persuaded to pull out elements from the eastern side but that may not be possible until the US could convince India to thin its military presence on its western front.
President Barack Obama may be thinking of an exit strategy but he also plans to more than double the number of US forces in Afghanistan to 68,000 troops by the end of 2009, up from about 32,000 in 2008. Pakistani strategists think that only 200,000 to 300,000 American troops will deliver Afghanistan; anything short of that will make a mess of the war, pushing more Taliban fighters and refugees into Pakistan. Therefore Pakistan is in there for the long haul. It wants to tackle the menace of the Taliban piecemeal, relying on the public opinion in its favour, without being faced with more Taliban militants from across the Durand Line. *
Source
Labels: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Militancy, Obama, Taliban, Terrorism, US Pakistan Relations
posted @ 9:51 AM,
,
Tunnel vision
Sunday, May 31, 2009
The News International, Pakistan
Sunday, May 31, 2009
The deconstruction of a briefing given by Major General Athar Abbas and its subsequent reporting in the media bears close study. The briefing was interesting in that for the first time it made reference to four tunnels constructed by the Taliban in Peochar, and the contents thereof. The Taliban have been busy looting not just the UN convoys but goods intended for the relief of IDPs as well. They had also collected pre-packed military rations (which are unlikely to be halal) and other comestibles not locally available. Additionally there was a large cache of sophisticated weapons – on which Major General Athar commented…"We are not surprised if these weapons slip out from Afghanistan and many of them are found in Swat and are being used against our troops." He later made the point that the outside world should stop worrying its silly little head about our nuclear assets and instead turn its attention to more pressing business – like how come all these modern weapons are finding their way over the border and who is it that is providing material and financial support to the insurgents we are currently fighting?
The weapons he was referring to were primarily American, and represented equipment considerably in advance of that used by our own forces. What he did not say was that this cross-border leakage was part of a long-established clandestine (but never really interdicted by our own agencies) trade in arms from the various Afghan conflicts over the last thirty years. This is neither new nor unexpected – and the Americans are in something of a double-bind. They are committed to arming and training the Afghan army. They arm them with modern American weapons. The Afghan army has, from time immemorial, traded-out a proportion of its weapons. Pas-de-probleme for Uncle Sam.
What Major General Athar Abbas was talking about was nothing more or less than the product of routine banditry. Banditry on a very large scale, perhaps, but banditry nonetheless. The Taliban are not fussy about where they get their supplies – but they prefer good quality reliable equipment. Neither would they be concerned at taking food from the mouths of the needy – the IDPs who are very much a by-product of Taliban activity in the first place. Stealing UN and NATO and American goods means that they are getting the best that thievery can get. That they then cache the proceeds of crime in tunnels where they have strategic bases is precisely what you would expect any organized and disciplined fighting force to do. Attempting to present this as a part of the activity of some hostile foreign agency is simply disingenuous. We cannot pretend that there is never any foreign hand in the tangled events now unfolding in our borderlands, because they have had foreign fingerprints all over them for centuries - but to try and lay off the whole sorry business into foreign laps smacks of the denial of reality that tumbles so glibly from the mouth of anybody speaking from a position of authority.
Source
Sunday, May 31, 2009
The deconstruction of a briefing given by Major General Athar Abbas and its subsequent reporting in the media bears close study. The briefing was interesting in that for the first time it made reference to four tunnels constructed by the Taliban in Peochar, and the contents thereof. The Taliban have been busy looting not just the UN convoys but goods intended for the relief of IDPs as well. They had also collected pre-packed military rations (which are unlikely to be halal) and other comestibles not locally available. Additionally there was a large cache of sophisticated weapons – on which Major General Athar commented…"We are not surprised if these weapons slip out from Afghanistan and many of them are found in Swat and are being used against our troops." He later made the point that the outside world should stop worrying its silly little head about our nuclear assets and instead turn its attention to more pressing business – like how come all these modern weapons are finding their way over the border and who is it that is providing material and financial support to the insurgents we are currently fighting?
The weapons he was referring to were primarily American, and represented equipment considerably in advance of that used by our own forces. What he did not say was that this cross-border leakage was part of a long-established clandestine (but never really interdicted by our own agencies) trade in arms from the various Afghan conflicts over the last thirty years. This is neither new nor unexpected – and the Americans are in something of a double-bind. They are committed to arming and training the Afghan army. They arm them with modern American weapons. The Afghan army has, from time immemorial, traded-out a proportion of its weapons. Pas-de-probleme for Uncle Sam.
What Major General Athar Abbas was talking about was nothing more or less than the product of routine banditry. Banditry on a very large scale, perhaps, but banditry nonetheless. The Taliban are not fussy about where they get their supplies – but they prefer good quality reliable equipment. Neither would they be concerned at taking food from the mouths of the needy – the IDPs who are very much a by-product of Taliban activity in the first place. Stealing UN and NATO and American goods means that they are getting the best that thievery can get. That they then cache the proceeds of crime in tunnels where they have strategic bases is precisely what you would expect any organized and disciplined fighting force to do. Attempting to present this as a part of the activity of some hostile foreign agency is simply disingenuous. We cannot pretend that there is never any foreign hand in the tangled events now unfolding in our borderlands, because they have had foreign fingerprints all over them for centuries - but to try and lay off the whole sorry business into foreign laps smacks of the denial of reality that tumbles so glibly from the mouth of anybody speaking from a position of authority.
Source
Labels: Afghanistan, Militancy, Swat Operation, Taliban, Terrorism
posted @ 10:39 AM,
,
Future shocks
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Editorial, The News International, Pakistan
Saturday, May 30, 2009
General Petraeus came calling again last Tuesday, this time to discuss the implications of an upcoming surge in US forces in Afghanistan. There can be little doubt that an increase in US military activity in southern Afghanistan is going to be bad news for Pakistan; we are going to see the war in Afghanistan spill over into and commingle with the war we are already fighting in NWFP and elsewhere. It is probable that another 21,000 US troops are going to arrive in Afghanistan over the next few months. Our own military spokesperson, Maj-Gen Ather Abbas said he knew nothing about the visit of General Petraeus – which if true is a poor reflection on those who brief him.
The very real fear that we have is that an upsurge in fighting in Afghanistan and pressure being brought to bear on the Taliban there, is going to drive them not just over the Durand Line and into NWFP, but into other towns and cities as well. They are already active in every province, have a strong presence in south Punjab and parts of Balochistan, and for them to be reinforced by battle-hardened fighters fresh from tangling with the Americans is a prospect we view with some despair. The somewhat threadbare strategy for dealing with the inevitable comes down to another handout - $700million would be at the disposal of the US military and more specifically to CENTCOM each year till 2013 under the Pakistan Counter-insurgency Capabilities Fund to meet the country's needs in its fight against extremists. The fund is designed to allow the Centcom chief to work with our military to strengthen counter-insurgency capability.
With the greatest of respect we have to tell you, General Petraeus, that this is peanuts, and rubbish peanuts at that. At the moment we are beginning to get to grips with the concept of the war we are now fighting as being 'ours' – which is difficult enough; but adding into the brew elements of a war that is 'yours' not 'ours' is going to make the fighting of our own war that much more difficult. This $700 million is not going to buy us anything other than cosmetics for the face of modern warfare, and no amount of promises to share intelligence gathered by drones and other cooperative military activity is going to mitigate the contribution to our own insecurity and instability that the fighting of 'your' war brings to our nation. The price we are going to pay in terms of lost incomes, another surge of Afghan refugees to add to the 1.7 million already here as well as the three million IDPs generated by our fight to take our country back from the Taliban, far outweighs the paltry $700 million you offer us. Come and visit us again. Bring better peanuts next time. And more of them.
Source
Saturday, May 30, 2009
General Petraeus came calling again last Tuesday, this time to discuss the implications of an upcoming surge in US forces in Afghanistan. There can be little doubt that an increase in US military activity in southern Afghanistan is going to be bad news for Pakistan; we are going to see the war in Afghanistan spill over into and commingle with the war we are already fighting in NWFP and elsewhere. It is probable that another 21,000 US troops are going to arrive in Afghanistan over the next few months. Our own military spokesperson, Maj-Gen Ather Abbas said he knew nothing about the visit of General Petraeus – which if true is a poor reflection on those who brief him.
The very real fear that we have is that an upsurge in fighting in Afghanistan and pressure being brought to bear on the Taliban there, is going to drive them not just over the Durand Line and into NWFP, but into other towns and cities as well. They are already active in every province, have a strong presence in south Punjab and parts of Balochistan, and for them to be reinforced by battle-hardened fighters fresh from tangling with the Americans is a prospect we view with some despair. The somewhat threadbare strategy for dealing with the inevitable comes down to another handout - $700million would be at the disposal of the US military and more specifically to CENTCOM each year till 2013 under the Pakistan Counter-insurgency Capabilities Fund to meet the country's needs in its fight against extremists. The fund is designed to allow the Centcom chief to work with our military to strengthen counter-insurgency capability.
With the greatest of respect we have to tell you, General Petraeus, that this is peanuts, and rubbish peanuts at that. At the moment we are beginning to get to grips with the concept of the war we are now fighting as being 'ours' – which is difficult enough; but adding into the brew elements of a war that is 'yours' not 'ours' is going to make the fighting of our own war that much more difficult. This $700 million is not going to buy us anything other than cosmetics for the face of modern warfare, and no amount of promises to share intelligence gathered by drones and other cooperative military activity is going to mitigate the contribution to our own insecurity and instability that the fighting of 'your' war brings to our nation. The price we are going to pay in terms of lost incomes, another surge of Afghan refugees to add to the 1.7 million already here as well as the three million IDPs generated by our fight to take our country back from the Taliban, far outweighs the paltry $700 million you offer us. Come and visit us again. Bring better peanuts next time. And more of them.
Source
Labels: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Extremism, Taliban, Terrorism, US Pakistan Relations
posted @ 9:28 AM,
,
Pakistan needs 'shift' to beat the Taliban
Friday, May 29, 2009
BBC NewsWednesday, 27 May 2009
The latest deadly bomb attack in the Pakistani city of Lahore has once again highlighted the threat posed by the Taliban. The militants now face a much more determined government, people and army - but there is a long way to go, argues guest columnist Ahmed Rashid.
After a month-long military campaign that has created nearly 1.5 million refugees, some 15,000 troops of the Pakistan army are now well on their way to retaking the Swat valley from the Pakistani Taliban.
Twice since 2006 the army has been driven out of the valley by extremists - but this time they appear determined to eliminate the Taliban and secure the valley over the long term so that refugees can quickly and safely return home.
However major extremist threats still remain while the civilian government and the army's need for a long-term strategy against them is being debated.
Paradigm shift
The Swat campaign is the first time that the army has appeared determined to wipe out extremism in one region.
The military campaign has been buoyed by a dramatic shift in public opinion against the extremists, the support of all major political parties and the international community, who have promised major international aid.
Without all these factors coming together it is unlikely that the army would have been so determined.
However eliminating extremism from the entire country will need a strategic paradigm shift by the government and the army.
Such a shift will affect domestic and foreign policy, relations with Pakistan's neighbours and a different set of national interest priorities.
Some 10% of the country is still under the control of the extremists.
The Pakistani and Afghan Taliban - and al-Qaeda - are headquartered not in Swat, but in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) adjacent to Afghanistan.
Senior Afghan Taliban leaders are also based in Balochistan and Sindh provinces from where they provide logistics for the Taliban's war against US and Nato forces in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile militant groups in Punjab who have fought in Indian-administered Kashmir - frequently at the behest of the military - remain active.
Some groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba - which was accused of carrying out the attacks in Mumbai (Bombay) last year that killed more than 170 people - have set up relief camps for refugees in northern Pakistan as an Islamic charity
Guerrilla attacks
The government's immediate aims must be to secure Swat so that the refugees can return home and not become a recruiting base for the Taliban.
But it will have to show much better management than it has up until now to help them rebuild their homes and livelihoods.
Thousands of troops will have to be based in Swat indefinitely to hold the valley and counter future Taliban guerrilla attacks.
Even after victory in Swat, extremism will remain a potent threat to Pakistan, undermining its economy, politics, social development and threatening the entire region.
For the US and Nato, Pakistan was once an appendage to their Afghan policy. Now it is their major concern.
There can also be no long-term solution to militancy without eliminating the command and control centres of the militants in Fata. So far the fighting there has been largely left to the under-armed and under-trained paramilitary Frontier Corps (FC).
Last August, when the FC deployed in Bajaur, the government promised that its actions there heralded the start of a campaign that would retake control of all seven tribal agencies.
Instead, nine months later the FC is still battling the militants in Bajaur.
That will have to change, but for the regular army to deploy in Fata in sufficient numbers and equipment, major external funding and military aid will be needed - which Washington and Nato countries will have to provide.
The army will have to get rid of its aversion to accepting Western training in modern counter-insurgency warfare.
However 80% of the army is deployed on the Indian border - and a dramatic improvement in relations with India has to take place before it can feel secure enough to move tens of thousands of troops from that border to Fata.
Before giving such assurances the Indians will demand that Islamabad also wind up groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, which the military continues to regard as a strategic asset.
For the army to give up on such groups there will have to be major progress on sorting out the multiple disputes between India and Pakistan - such as the Kashmir question and the sharing of river waters.
An equally decisive shift will be needed to deal with the Afghan Taliban leadership in Pakistan, which the army also treats as strategically important.
Pakistan's improved relations with Afghanistan since the advent of the civilian government reflects a major positive shift, but ultimately the Afghan Taliban will have to be given a timeframe to open talks with the Kabul government and leave Pakistan.
In order to deal with Fata and the overall threat of extremism, Pakistan will need to make a major shift in its national priorities that will be not so much based on enmity with India, but focused more on domestic threats and the economy.
Yet at the same time Pakistan's neighbours will also have to be more accommodating, changing their attitudes and policies in the region in order to make such a strategic shift by Pakistan both possible and sustainable.
Source
Labels: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Extremism, Indopak Relations, Militancy, Swat Operation, Taliban, Terrorism, US Pakistan Relations
posted @ 4:51 PM,
,
Afghan-Pakistan-Iran Deal Depends on the United States
"They should be natural allies, but whether one likes it or not and for whatever reasons one wishes to name, the fact is that the foreign policy options of Afghanistan (drastically) and Pakistan (to a lesser extent) are limited by the will of the United States."
Editorial, Frintier Post, Pakistan
May 26, 2009
The commitment to jointly battle their common enemies of extremism, militancy and terrorism by the presidents of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan at their Tehran summit was laudable. The real problem, however, is the history of relations over the least three decades among the three brotherly states.
Apart from their geographical proximity, they have much in common that should serve as a basis for everlastingly binding their peoples together. They should be natural allies.
Yet it has not been these commonalities that have shaped their relations. Instead, compulsions fraught with unquenchable animosity have often times been the drivers of their ties. Had they allowed there mutual affinities to guide their affairs, in all probability the three countries would not now be so blighted by the monstrosities of extremism, militancy and terrorism that exact such a heavy toll. There's no point going into that dismal past. What is done is done - and cannot be undone.
But if history can't be re-written, the narrative of what happens now and in the future is open. To do better this time will necessarily entail unvarnished sincerity, commitment and a steely resolve, come what may. But that's easier said than done. If the past is any guide, one must be indeed skeptical. Without apportioning blame, none of these three fraternal states has an unblemished track record. None have acted correctly and angelically; each has sinned against the others - even if in varying degree.
When Afghanistan allowed itself to be ravaged by civil strife and internecine conflict, incited, fueled and backed by foreigners, both Pakistan and Iran were caught fishing for trouble in Afghanistan's waters by backing opposing rivals. An example is the late 1990s, when Islamabad sat in the ruling Taliban’s corner while Tehran sided with their adversary, the Northern Alliance [as did the United States].
If all of this is over and real changes of heart have occurred in Kabul, Tehran and Islamabad, this should augur well for upcoming relations between the three. But there's a snag. For the Tehran Declaration to come to fruition, it is imperative that the three have complete sovereign control of their foreign policies. This cannot be said of Kabul or Islamabad, although Tehran may have decisive foreign policy control. Whether one likes it or not and for whatever reasons one wishes to name, the fact is that the foreign policy options of Afghanistan (drastically) and Pakistan (to a lesser extent) are limited by the will of the United States.
That leaves open the question of whether this new commitment among Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran will succeed, as U.S. relations with Tehran remain frosty, notwithstanding the new U.S. administration’s warm overtures. Then there's a domestic factor that could potentially stall the execution of this commitment. Both Iran and Afghanistan will soon hold presidential elections and in both the countries, the incumbents are running again. So at least for now, carrying out this commitment is bound to take a backseat to hectic electioneering. And there's yet another predictable hitch: due to the lack of a serious challenger, Afghan President Karzai seems like a shoo-in. And since he is abhorred by the Obama Administration, there's feverish talk of elevating someone of Washington’s choice as the country’s true national leader [a prime minister], with Karzai reduced to being an ineffectual head of state [such as the office of Israeli president, presently occupied by Shimon Peres]. Given the overarching influence of the United States due to the huge amount of aid to the country, even regarding Afghanistan's domestic affairs, this may indeed come to pass.
Source
Editorial, Frintier Post, Pakistan
May 26, 2009
The commitment to jointly battle their common enemies of extremism, militancy and terrorism by the presidents of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan at their Tehran summit was laudable. The real problem, however, is the history of relations over the least three decades among the three brotherly states.
Apart from their geographical proximity, they have much in common that should serve as a basis for everlastingly binding their peoples together. They should be natural allies.
Yet it has not been these commonalities that have shaped their relations. Instead, compulsions fraught with unquenchable animosity have often times been the drivers of their ties. Had they allowed there mutual affinities to guide their affairs, in all probability the three countries would not now be so blighted by the monstrosities of extremism, militancy and terrorism that exact such a heavy toll. There's no point going into that dismal past. What is done is done - and cannot be undone.
But if history can't be re-written, the narrative of what happens now and in the future is open. To do better this time will necessarily entail unvarnished sincerity, commitment and a steely resolve, come what may. But that's easier said than done. If the past is any guide, one must be indeed skeptical. Without apportioning blame, none of these three fraternal states has an unblemished track record. None have acted correctly and angelically; each has sinned against the others - even if in varying degree.
When Afghanistan allowed itself to be ravaged by civil strife and internecine conflict, incited, fueled and backed by foreigners, both Pakistan and Iran were caught fishing for trouble in Afghanistan's waters by backing opposing rivals. An example is the late 1990s, when Islamabad sat in the ruling Taliban’s corner while Tehran sided with their adversary, the Northern Alliance [as did the United States].
If all of this is over and real changes of heart have occurred in Kabul, Tehran and Islamabad, this should augur well for upcoming relations between the three. But there's a snag. For the Tehran Declaration to come to fruition, it is imperative that the three have complete sovereign control of their foreign policies. This cannot be said of Kabul or Islamabad, although Tehran may have decisive foreign policy control. Whether one likes it or not and for whatever reasons one wishes to name, the fact is that the foreign policy options of Afghanistan (drastically) and Pakistan (to a lesser extent) are limited by the will of the United States.
That leaves open the question of whether this new commitment among Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran will succeed, as U.S. relations with Tehran remain frosty, notwithstanding the new U.S. administration’s warm overtures. Then there's a domestic factor that could potentially stall the execution of this commitment. Both Iran and Afghanistan will soon hold presidential elections and in both the countries, the incumbents are running again. So at least for now, carrying out this commitment is bound to take a backseat to hectic electioneering. And there's yet another predictable hitch: due to the lack of a serious challenger, Afghan President Karzai seems like a shoo-in. And since he is abhorred by the Obama Administration, there's feverish talk of elevating someone of Washington’s choice as the country’s true national leader [a prime minister], with Karzai reduced to being an ineffectual head of state [such as the office of Israeli president, presently occupied by Shimon Peres]. Given the overarching influence of the United States due to the huge amount of aid to the country, even regarding Afghanistan's domestic affairs, this may indeed come to pass.
Source
Labels: Afghanistan, Iran, US Pakistan Relations
posted @ 4:21 PM,
,
Iran Hosts Regional Summit Meeting
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The New York Times
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Published: May 24, 2009
CAIRO — Iran hosted its first three-way summit meeting on Sunday with Pakistan and Afghanistan to discuss cooperation on regional issues, the latest sign of Iran’s emergence as the regional power.
With Pakistan and Afghanistan fighting to hold back the rising tide of radical, Islamic insurgencies led by the Taliban, the meeting in Tehran seemed intended by Iran to assure its neighbors that working together the three could solve their problems without having to rely on the West.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran suggested that the United States was the main problem when he described “others who are alien to the nations and culture of our nations.” It was a not-too-subtle swipe, but still one that Washington’s allies from Pakistan and Afghanistan did not rebut. That served as another sign that Iran was increasingly seen as less of a threat to the West, and the region, than the prospect of the Taliban’s controlling Pakistan or Afghanistan.
“If we can save Pakistan and Afghanistan from these problems, from extremism,” President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan said in comments broadcast in Iran, “then such trilateral meetings are meaningful.”
Mr. Ahmadinejad, Mr. Karzai and President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan signed an agreement — called the Tehran Statement — in which they committed to work together to fight Islamic extremism and stop drug smuggling across their borders. Though the declaration did not outline specific action, it served as a sort of bookend to changes in regional dynamics that began after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, with the United States-led invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001 and of Iraq in March 2003.
The summit meeting also served as proof that Western efforts to isolate Iran over its nuclear energy program, through unilateral and United Nations Security Council sanctions, have given way to more pragmatic regional concerns.
Although the presidents of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan had met before in a larger gathering of regional leaders, the summit meeting on Sunday was the first among just the three of them.
Iran’s president, Mr. Ahmadinejad, said he was confident the meeting would “guarantee security and expansion of cooperation in the region,” in remarks reported by Iran’s official Islamic Republic News Agency. Iran was once bitter enemies with the Taliban, which controlled Afghanistan before the American-led invasion there. Iran was also once a regional rival of Pakistan. Iran is a Shiite Muslim state. Pakistan is a Sunni Muslim state, and often sided with other Sunni states, like Saudi Arabia, against Iran in political and regional matters.
Now, with the Taliban routed from power but waging an aggressive insurgency in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, the presidents of those two countries have turned to Iran, on their western borders, for help.
“There are many problems along our joint borders,” Mr. Zardari said, in comments reported by the Islamic Republic News Agency. “We cannot underestimate the problems and we should look for solutions to all of them.”
President Obama has also sought to re-engage diplomatically with Iran after three decades of animosity between it and the United States. Iranian officials have given mixed signals, sticking with their death-to-America ideology at home while suggesting that after presidential elections in Iran next month they may be willing to open talks.
Source
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Published: May 24, 2009
CAIRO — Iran hosted its first three-way summit meeting on Sunday with Pakistan and Afghanistan to discuss cooperation on regional issues, the latest sign of Iran’s emergence as the regional power.
With Pakistan and Afghanistan fighting to hold back the rising tide of radical, Islamic insurgencies led by the Taliban, the meeting in Tehran seemed intended by Iran to assure its neighbors that working together the three could solve their problems without having to rely on the West.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran suggested that the United States was the main problem when he described “others who are alien to the nations and culture of our nations.” It was a not-too-subtle swipe, but still one that Washington’s allies from Pakistan and Afghanistan did not rebut. That served as another sign that Iran was increasingly seen as less of a threat to the West, and the region, than the prospect of the Taliban’s controlling Pakistan or Afghanistan.
“If we can save Pakistan and Afghanistan from these problems, from extremism,” President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan said in comments broadcast in Iran, “then such trilateral meetings are meaningful.”
Mr. Ahmadinejad, Mr. Karzai and President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan signed an agreement — called the Tehran Statement — in which they committed to work together to fight Islamic extremism and stop drug smuggling across their borders. Though the declaration did not outline specific action, it served as a sort of bookend to changes in regional dynamics that began after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, with the United States-led invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001 and of Iraq in March 2003.
The summit meeting also served as proof that Western efforts to isolate Iran over its nuclear energy program, through unilateral and United Nations Security Council sanctions, have given way to more pragmatic regional concerns.
Although the presidents of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan had met before in a larger gathering of regional leaders, the summit meeting on Sunday was the first among just the three of them.
Iran’s president, Mr. Ahmadinejad, said he was confident the meeting would “guarantee security and expansion of cooperation in the region,” in remarks reported by Iran’s official Islamic Republic News Agency. Iran was once bitter enemies with the Taliban, which controlled Afghanistan before the American-led invasion there. Iran was also once a regional rival of Pakistan. Iran is a Shiite Muslim state. Pakistan is a Sunni Muslim state, and often sided with other Sunni states, like Saudi Arabia, against Iran in political and regional matters.
Now, with the Taliban routed from power but waging an aggressive insurgency in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, the presidents of those two countries have turned to Iran, on their western borders, for help.
“There are many problems along our joint borders,” Mr. Zardari said, in comments reported by the Islamic Republic News Agency. “We cannot underestimate the problems and we should look for solutions to all of them.”
President Obama has also sought to re-engage diplomatically with Iran after three decades of animosity between it and the United States. Iranian officials have given mixed signals, sticking with their death-to-America ideology at home while suggesting that after presidential elections in Iran next month they may be willing to open talks.
Source
Labels: Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Summit Meeting
posted @ 9:16 AM,
,
